Could timing be key here - the stadium expansion being discussed when council funding an issue generally. Everton negotiations when capital markets are more supportive? After all Everton would still be paying right?

Allez Allez Allez

You are quite correct, the two need not be mutually incompatible; ideally we have both. However, Liverpool has finite resources and has to choose what will most likely represent its most cost effective investment.

The club invested £109 million to expand the Main Stand; this has resulted in an increase in matchday revenue, which if sustained will be sufficient to pay down the construction costs in five to six years. Thereafter it will add £20 million every year to the bottom line, however we will only see this financial benefit from 2022.

The club has also invested in additional commercial staff (c. 62), and while this increase may not be directly responsible for all the growth, commercial income increased by c. £23 million in the season 2016/17. (No doubt some of this growth might be attributable to the increased capacity of Anfield; we simply do not have the data to make even an educated guess.)

Further increasing the capacity, with the addition of more affordable seating, would enhance the "Anfield Experience" which in turn might encourage additional sponsorship, but this cannot be taken for granted.

The primary driver, for increased commercial (and broadcasting) revenue is success on the pitch; ideally, winning silverware. And although investing in the squad does not automatically guarantee success, it is more likely, in the short term, to produce results than simply increasing the capacity of Anfield. (Longer term, the club is investing £50 million in an improved training complex; the only return on this investment will be if it succeeds in producing a steady stream of youth talent.)

While you and I might argue that bigger and more vociferous crowds will encourage the team to bigger and better performances, we have to recognise that buying (or nurturing) better quality players is a more certain prescription for success.

So, does Liverpool use £50 million to buy a new midfielder say, who might enhance our chances of a league title or qualification for the CL (as well as having a potential higher resale value); or does it invest the same £50 million in redeveloping the ARE, bearing in mind it might take 5 or 10 or maybe many more years before it makes a positive contribution to our transfer funds?

As a fan, I want both, but for me it's an easy choice; it's not my money.

I wonder if a lot is hinging on CL qualification, as qualifying 2 years in a row surely should see a big spike in renewal prices for various deals we have? I'd imagine we'd be wanting pretty much parity with some of the newer deals we've seen over the last year or so.

I'd love that match day revenue became so unimportant the focus could be on reduced tickets and getting young fans into the ground.

FSG PR plant

Could timing be key here - the stadium expansion being discussed when council funding an issue generally. Everton negotiations when capital markets are more supportive? After all Everton would still be paying right?

I am not sure capital markets are particularly more receptive than they were 5 years ago, especially not vis-a-vis a UK asset.

Everton would still be paying, but that is sort of the essence of financial engineering. An asset will be created with funds secured by the taxpayer, a revenue stream will be created by that asset, during which time the taxpayer carries the associated risk (the parameters of which remain very unclear), and that revenue stream is expected to pay off the asset. In the end, Everton's customers/supporters will pay, but somehow this sort of model sounds sensible when it is described around a sporting asset, when if one substituted 'City/taxpayer' for you, 'Everton' for me, and 'new stadium' for say 'apartment building', 'football' for 'property business', the deal is on the face of it ludicrous. You get a minimal return, take on all of the downside risk and get none of the equity built up from getting into the property business.

Unfortunately there isn't any published information that is easily available.

My understanding is that in the past (going back to the Moores and H&G days), the council informed the club that any redevelopment of over 60k would have a significant impact on transport infrastructure, and therefore it was unviable or the club would likely have to contribute a large chunk of money on upgrades to that infrastructure (through planning agreements and S.106 planning obligations). That contributed to the club looking at options away from Anfield, for an entirely new stadium.

Re. the question about the weekend of the Grand National at Aintree, when a development proposal is considered, it is done so taking account of the existing network and developments (when transport assessments are undertaken). Therefore, one scenario that would have been considered is events taking place at both sporting venues at the same time. The outcomes of such assessments, resulting in the 60k ceiling being set, would have been that going above that would have a significant impact.

Going above 60,000 is not dead in the water in my opinion. With a continued push for use of more public transport and using systems like park and ride and smart motorways, it could become viable to undertake the improvements/upgrades to the transport network that would be required. These types of upgrades take a lot planning. First there's funding, then and a lot of specialist assessments, then going through the democratic process of approval, and finally a huge amount of spending on the materials/labour - easily into £100s of millions.

It's why the entire process is taking so long, and the club are right not to continually put out statements akin to "spades will be in the ground in days", and instead do it once, and do it right. We have only had the joy of the Main Stand for coming upto 18 months. It took six years from FSG buying the club to the stand opening. We will need to enjoy it, and the football that Klopp has the team playing for a while yet before the ARE is done.

Planning consent has never been sought for a stadium capacity in excess of 60,000 so there never was any formal statement regarding a requirement to invest in transport infrastructure or the exact increase in capacity (over and above 60,000) that would trigger the need for this investment.

However when a possible increase to 70,000 was mooted (c.a. 2007/2008) the council "let it be known" that there would have to be a public enquiry, and that their support for the application (for increased capacity) would only be forthcoming if Liverpool committed to invest in local transport infrastructure e.g. one of Merseytravel's pet schemes, upgrading the Bootle branch line.

As both @inaiq and @Arminius have said, the bluenose dominated council is more than willing to fleece Liverpool, whilst bending over backwards to offer financial support for the blueshites.

For example, the expansion of the Main Stand would have cost considerably less had we not been obliged to "donate" substantial (undisclosed*) sums towards the general regeneration of the Anfield area.

★★★★★

The indications are that the Kirkby training centre will be completed by the summer of 2020 and will take priority over any ARE expansion/rebuild. That means that the earliest an expanded ARE is likely to open (assuming it goes ahead) will be for the 21/22 season. Chances are that the club will need to re-apply for planning permission as the current deadline (I think this is around September 2019) for proceeding on the initial permission is likely to have expired by the time building commences.

TIA Regular

Planning consent has never been sought for a stadium capacity in excess of 60,000 so there never was any formal statement regarding a requirement to invest in transport infrastructure or the exact increase in capacity (over and above 60,000) that would trigger the need for this investment.

However when a possible increase to 70,000 was mooted (c.a. 2007/2008) the council "let it be known" that there would have to be a public enquiry, and that their support for the application (for increased capacity) would only be forthcoming if Liverpool committed to invest in local transport infrastructure e.g. one of Merseytravel's pet schemes, upgrading the Bootle branch line.

As both @inaiq and @Arminius have said, the bluenose dominated council is more than willing to fleece Liverpool, whilst bending over backwards to offer financial support for the blueshites.

For example, the expansion of the Main Stand would have cost considerably less had we not been obliged to "donate" substantial (undisclosed*) sums towards the general regeneration of the Anfield area.

No football club is successful without hard work.

For example, condition 24 of the planning consent sets out the following requirements:

The capacity of the Main Stand shall not exceed 12,000 spectators until the following highway works have been completed strictly in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and implemented at nil cost to the City Council. The specific details of the works required are set out in the Transport Strategy (Document C1/3) and include the following works;

Measure 4.0: Improvements to the City Centre express services before and after Matches including bus stop signs and any necessary infrastructure, access kerbs, shelters, posts or road markings. (figure 12.14)

An assessment of the street lighting on Walton Breck Road to ensure that satisfactory lighting levels are maintained with the proposed introduction of uncontrolled crossing points adjacent to the stadium on Walton Breck Road and any necessary upgrade to equipment or service.

The extension of the Football Match Parking Zone to include the residential areas to the west of St Domingo Road and Heyworth Street as identified on Plan LS52137.

The assessment and any necessary reconfiguration of the existing free parking bays to residents parking bays to those roads with such facilities within the FMPZ areas 1-5.

No football club is successful without hard work.

I wonder if a lot is hinging on CL qualification, as qualifying 2 years in a row surely should see a big spike in renewal prices for various deals we have? I'd imagine we'd be wanting pretty much parity with some of the newer deals we've seen over the last year or so.

I'd love that match day revenue became so unimportant the focus could be on reduced tickets and getting young fans into the ground.

I believe that if we can qualify for the Champions League on a regular basis, then the value of our commercial deals are almost certain to rise. Whether qualifying for the CL for two successive seasons will be sufficient to achieve parity with some of the mega-deals secured by our competitors, I don't know. Maybe we will have to qualify and progress well to the later stages of the competition, every season, for several more seasons, before the eye-watering sponsorships are on offer; who can say?

As for increased commercial income being the catalyst for lower ticket prices, I would be less confident. Although I can see the benefits that this might achieve i.e. an increase in younger attendance and an improved match atmosphere, I suspect that before ticket prices were reduced we would have to see a sustained reduction in transfer fees, player wage demands, and agents fees, none of which are likely in the foreseeable future. Throw in the possibility that TV revenues might stagnate, or even fall, then matchday revenue becomes more significant, not less, further reducing the possibility of a reduction. But, I hope I'm wrong.

TIA Regular

I believe that if we can qualify for the Champions League on a regular basis, then the value of our commercial deals are almost certain to rise. Whether qualifying for the CL for two successive seasons will be sufficient to achieve parity with some of the mega-deals secured by our competitors, I don't know. Maybe we will have to qualify and progress well to the later stages of the competition, every season, for several more seasons, before the eye-watering sponsorships are on offer; who can say?

As for increased commercial income being the catalyst for lower ticket prices, I would be less confident. Although I can see the benefits that this might achieve i.e. an increase in younger attendance and an improved match atmosphere, I suspect that before ticket prices were reduced we would have to see a sustained reduction in transfer fees, player wage demands, and agents fees, none of which are likely in the foreseeable future. Throw in the possibility that TV revenues might stagnate, or even fall, then matchday revenue becomes more significant, not less, further reducing the possibility of a reduction. But, I hope I'm wrong.

No football club is successful without hard work.

The indications are that the Kirkby training centre will be completed by the summer of 2020 and will take priority over any ARE expansion/rebuild. That means that the earliest an expanded ARE is likely to open (assuming it goes ahead) will be for the 21/22 season. Chances are that the club will need to re-apply for planning permission as the current deadline (I think this is around September 2019) for proceeding on the initial permission is likely to have expired by the time building commences.

The article mentions that permission expires in September 2019; this corresponds to condition 37 of the original planning consent which states that the development shall be begun within three years of the date of this permission (June 2014), or within two years of the approval of the last reserved matter (i.e. 4th September 2017), whichever is the later.

However, I believe that a fresh application was always on the cards. If, as has been widely reported, the intended expansion is of the order of 6000 or more seats this would exceed by some margin the increase in capacity given outline consent which was for c.4800 seats.

TIA Regular

The article mentions that permission expires in September 2019; this corresponds to condition 37 of the original planning consent which states that the development shall be begun within three years of the date of this permission (June 2014), or within two years of the approval of the last reserved matter (i.e. 4th September 2017), whichever is the later.

However, I believe that a fresh application was always on the cards. If, as has been widely reported, the intended expansion is of the order of 6000 or more seats this would exceed by some margin the increase in capacity given outline consent which was for c.4800 seats.

Yes - a fresh application is required regardless of the numbers - an outline permission gives confirmation of the acceptability, in principal, from the council of a proposal. The idea behind it is to allow the club to then go away and draw up further detailed plans, and various assessments needed (at large costs), having an idea of the key issues that need resolving.

If the outline permission lapses prior to the club submitting a full application, it will not really make a difference. Councils aren't able to just refuse planning permission without proper justification, as they risk appeals, which if lost, cost a lot of money.

No football club is successful without hard work.

Provided that the increases in it (commercial revenue) and other (media and corporate entertainment) revenue streams are sufficient to keep pace with the apparently unremitting growth in transfer fees, player wages and agent's fees, then I think that a price freeze is probably as much as we can hope for, at least for the foreseeable future.

Well-Known Member

As much as I’m glad the stadium is being made bigger, I can’t help but feel it’s only delaying the inevitable of having to build a stadium one day. Who knows how much it will cost in 15/20 years.
But at least for now it’ll mean we are financially more competitive.
As for safe standing, it’s not for me. I think atmospheres would be better if the majority of the tickets were sold at the turnstile and were only £10. At least for the Kop.

Well-Known Member

I don’t think so. I’m not sure what percentage of our income is ticket sales but Kop holds 12,000 and average ticket price is £30 so each game we make 360,000 from Kop seats. If we third that with the £10 Kop ticket on the day, you would lose £240,000 but would get more locals and passionate supporters in (queuing up for hours and buying merchandise/drinks) and that would make a better atmosphere I think.
Just an idea.

Well-Known Member

I don’t think so. I’m not sure what percentage of our income is ticket sales but Kop holds 12,000 and average ticket price is £30 so each game we make 360,000 from Kop seats. If we third that with the £10 Kop ticket on the day, you would lose £240,000 but would get more locals and passionate supporters in (queuing up for hours and buying merchandise/drinks) and that would make a better atmosphere I think.
Just an idea.

TIA Regular

The suggestion only local fans can be passionate is rubbish, people do move. I’d have teens tickets as low as possible to be honest.

I live in London was brought up near Liverpool, I travel up 6 or so games a year, I start off about 5am come back about 11 or even later. Stood next to a guy on the Kop against City, been up for a few games originally from Saudi Arabia sung badly to every song.

Some of the miserable fucks you see on the train afterwards that are the issue. They get off at Runcorn and Crewe.

Well-Known Member

The suggestion only local fans can be passionate is rubbish, people do move. I’d have teens tickets as low as possible to be honest.

I live in London was brought up near Liverpool, I travel up 6 or so games a year, I start off about 5am come back about 11 or even later. Stood next to a guy on the Kop against City, been up for a few games originally from Saudi Arabia sung badly to every song.

Some of the miserable fucks you see on the train afterwards that are the issue. They get off at Runcorn and Crewe.

Who is more likely to be able to queue for a few hours? Local working class people with jobs and responsibilities? Or people who are in control of managing their own time and fancy a bit of a bargain? Or someone who has spent hours flying to the country to build a holiday around going to a live game? Or ticket tout gangs who have the profits of their ticket selling as a large part of their income? Sorry your suggestion is good natured but would be a disaster for the average working class local fan.

Well-Known Member

Who is more likely to be able to queue for a few hours? Local working class people with jobs and responsibilities? Or people who are in control of managing their own time and fancy a bit of a bargain? Or someone who has spent hours flying to the country to build a holiday around going to a live game? Or ticket tout gangs who have the profits of their ticket selling as a large part of their income? Sorry your suggestion is good natured but would be a disaster for the average working class local fan.

Well-Known Member

Who is more likely to be able to queue for a few hours? Local working class people with jobs and responsibilities? Or people who are in control of managing their own time and fancy a bit of a bargain? Or someone who has spent hours flying to the country to build a holiday around going to a live game? Or ticket tout gangs who have the profits of their ticket selling as a large part of their income? Sorry your suggestion is good natured but would be a disaster for the average working class local fan.

But you’re probably right. Doubt it woulda benefit anyone with true intentions.
I miss that old atmosphere... something that happens mostly in European nights... what’s the difference in mentality with fans on those nights?

Well-Known Member

But you’re probably right. Doubt it woulda benefit anyone with true intentions.
I miss that old atmosphere... something that happens mostly in European nights... what’s the difference in mentality with fans on those nights?

I think the others are right. Making sure younger people are getting to go. Maybe off organised lists with built in criteria. Touts could easily be wiped out if everyone had their names attached to their tickets but could register a change of ticket to someone else within a certain amount of time online. Anybody signing over 50% or more of the tickets to multiple other people shouldn't then be allowed to buy more tickets. But you'll never be able to sell cheaper tickets just to people with less money. How would the club ever be able to realistically check that? Just sort out the next generation of fans by being cheaper for people born before certain dates and try and combat professional touts without punishing Joe Bloggs who let's his nephew or mate in work use his ticket for the occasional game he can't make.

Internet Terrorist

I don’t think so. I’m not sure what percentage of our income is ticket sales but Kop holds 12,000 and average ticket price is £30 so each game we make 360,000 from Kop seats. If we third that with the £10 Kop ticket on the day, you would lose £240,000 but would get more locals and passionate supporters in (queuing up for hours and buying merchandise/drinks) and that would make a better atmosphere I think.
Just an idea.